You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Creating signs sounds pretty fun. I actually tried looking for some protest sign generators, and found a couple but none were that good. I also can't think of any messages that are as good as the ones mentioned.

I guess as long as you keep in mind that the WBC members aren't likely to change their minds and use the signs instead to communicate to the rest of the public that they're ridiculous, it should be a successful counter-protest. Try to take some pics!

I'm thinking if I'm going to go and make a sign it'd probably say something simple like "God Hates Hatespeech" or something like that.

Unless I want to go satirical. "God Hates Dial-up" etc.

You could always buy a can of fart spray...

I wouldn't even acknowledge their message. That gives them a chance to rant. That's what they want. Instead, talk about something inane, like the weather or the World Series.

"We grow up thinking that﻿ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are﻿ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of﻿ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

I am pleased you believe this because it is an improvement on the Bronze Age beliefs of the Torah, the Bible and the Koran.

However your belief is a latter gloss on two of these holy books.

But even your gloss is unacceptable in a democratic society of free individuals.

Sneaking back in here for a second, I'd like to point out that it's not a "gloss" at all. It's literally whot's stated. Yeu can't "add" interpretation to whot wasn't present at the time.

Keep in mind, that at the time of the writing of these texts, bisexuality and gays were *NORMAL* in rome. It wasn't even given a special name for it because it was so standard. It was actually quite common for two men to be lovers, and to have one take up a mistress to bare children with.

Considering these're the ones who invented 'roman catholic', one of the strictest in terms of the whole 'gay' thing... they actually were referring purely to sodomy. It's not "glossing over" at all, it's actually understanding WTH was going on at the timeframe and reading the passages in actual context, rather than trying to apply today's values to something that's thousands of years out of date.

Fact is, trying to state that "ZOMG GOD HATES GAYS" actually is glossing over the intended meaning. And pretty much anything in the koran preaches killing anyway, so really that's no surprise that it's the only one that says anything to the contrary.

It doesn't matter if they're right. If they can't proove they're right, then they're wrong. No matter how right they may be.

But I have forgotten what we were arguing about .... however I notice here that the argument is between those who want to include everyone in marriage and those who want to exclude gays and lesbians, polygamists and bigamists.

And I notice it is the religiously inclined who want to exclude gays and lesbians, polygamists and bigamists from marriage, with the exception of Islam who wants to include polygamists and bigamists in marriage but exclude gays and lesbians.

But all of them quote the voice of God expressed in their holy book in support of their position.

And it seems to me that we need to publicly criticise their beliefs in their God and their holy book.

Of course in the case of Islam, you criticise only at the risk of your life.

But in the case of Judaism or Christianity we have had a thousand years of interpretation that has softened the voice of God - so much so that the Anglicans are now ordaining practising gay and lesbian priests.

So Christians and Jews sneak around the voice of God, just as you and I, Katsuni, sneak around together.

Wow...I'm ashamed to even be put into the same category as them. My goodness, its radicals like that, that give the rest of us christians a bad name.
What they're doing is wrong and totally against our belief system.

I can really see they have the love of Jesus in their hearts [/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

ayoitsStepho is becoming someone else. Actually her true self, a rite of passage.

But I have forgotten what we were arguing about .... however I notice here that the argument is between those who want to include everyone in marriage and those who want to exclude gays and lesbians, polygamists and bigamists.

And I notice it is the religiously inclined who want to exclude gays and lesbians, polygamists and bigamists from marriage, with the exception of Islam who wants to include polygamists and bigamists in marriage but exclude gays and lesbians.

But all of them quote the voice of God expressed in their holy book in support of their position.

And it seems to me that we need to publicly criticise their beliefs in their God and their holy book.

Of course in the case of Islam, you criticise only at the risk of your life.

But in the case of Judaism or Christianity we have had a thousand years of interpretation that has softened the voice of God - so much so that the Anglicans are now ordaining practising gay and lesbian priests.

So Christians and Jews sneak around the voice of God, just as you and I, Katsuni, sneak around together.

I know some Christians think this is anathema, but I don't really think of the bible as "the voice of God." I don't believe the voice of God can be nailed down in words. The Bible and the Torah are holy books because they're the only links we have to the earliest practitioners of Judeo-Christian faith. I don't think we were ever meant to be static, though. People like to record things and try to stick to them, even though it's the nature of all things to change (see: grammar). Changeable is how we were made, why not embrace it?

I believe that this is probably similar to what you were intimating but I can never be sure.

The one who buggers a fire burns his penis-anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

Revelation

Originally Posted by Ivy

I know some Christians think this is anathema, but I don't really think of the bible as "the voice of God." I don't believe the voice of God can be nailed down in words. The Bible and the Torah are holy books because they're the only links we have to the earliest practitioners of Judeo-Christian faith. I don't think we were ever meant to be static, though. People like to record things and try to stick to them, even though it's the nature of all things to change (see: grammar). Changeable is how we were made, why not embrace it?

I believe that this is probably similar to what you were intimating but I can never be sure.

I hesitate to argue with you Ivy 'cause you are so nice. But I can't help thinking that the voice of God is revealed in the Bible.

And while science is empirical, Christianity is based on revelation. That is why it is called revealed religion. And indeed the last book of the Bible is called, "Revelations".

I rather like this because as I think, things reveal themselves to me. And I find it very pleasant to have revelations on a personal level.

I find to approach something empirically is hard work, while a revelation is a mini satori.

We all know now that revelation must be subject to reason. And indeed Peguy tells us that the doctrine of his Church is called, "Faith and Reason".

So you might say that the world is revealed to us by our parents. And even we ourselves are revealed to us by our parents. And it is only as we grow older and develop our critical faculties that we can apply reason to revelation.

And once again Peguy tells us that his Church regards the age of reason to be seven years. So I conclude, prior to that everything is revelatory.

And how lovely it is to be a child with loving parents and have everything revealed to you and for you.